Samping

Today’s development agenda is built on the assumption that the economy is the main indicator of wellbeing. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is still widely used to measure growth and show economic status/level. This has led to the currently popular approach taken by the Indonesian government is an open economy/liberalization in the natural resource sector, where investment is the main driver. This is the key idea behind the discussion and ratification of the Omnibus Job Creation Law and several problematic bills in the past year.

While this approach can create many formal jobs, it also poses a major threat to rural communities because their livelihoods are in the agricultural sector and other traditional occupations that rely heavily on natural resources and land. In fact, the global economic crisis in 2008 has shown that it is the community-based economy that has stabilized the national economy. When the economic crisis occurred in that year, the agricultural sector was one of the sectors that was relied on for job creation. [1]

The same approach tends to ignore the ongoing climate crisis caused by natural exploitation. In fact, current laws and regulations override the aspect of environmental protection to ensure the investment opportunities is wide open. Therefore, injustice in various dimensions is certain to worsen in the future.

RMI together with the Tenure Coalition [2] conducted a series of focused discussions on the Development of Wellbeing Concepts and Instruments. This activity aims to design, experiment and promote ways of understanding wellbeing in a comprehensive way and emphasize all the different aspects that are interdependent; including in this initial phase is to represent and define wellbeing itself in Indonesian with various indicators.

This discussion has been conducted twice. The first discussion was attended by 19 people, on Tuesday, November 3 and the second discussion, followed by 20 people, on Wednesday, November 11, 2020. This focused discussion activity was moderated by Wahyubinatara Fernandez (RMI), and with two expert speakers, namely Faisal Basri and Melani Abdulkadir Sunito, and one wellbeing development researcher, Ruth I. Rahayu.

The second discussion aimed to gather inputs from all discussion participants, both the inputs from data, and inputs from actual experience and contextual conditions in society. In addition, the purpose of the discussion was to agree on four initial locations for data collection related to wellbeing measurements at the community level, in which the measuring instrument is currently being developed. These four locations are expected to represent the various communities in Indonesia. 

Results of the First Discussion

The second discussion was opened with the presentation of the results of the first discussion by Ruth I. Rahayu. In the presentation, Ruth explained the results of the first discussion which was about the definition of wellbeing. Wellbeing is welfare, but it is not only measured from an economic perspective, but also physical, psychological, social, spiritual, bodily (sexuality), prosperity (economic adequacy), safety and happiness (happy and comfortable life). Wellbeing can also be interpreted as human and natural conditions that can live well, comfortably, and content.

After that, the first discussion was continued with the wellbeing dimension. Ruth explained that Melani Abdulkadir S. offers six dimensions of wellbeing, Physical and Mental Health; Economy and Resources (including access to work or sources of income); Social and Community Development (including how people obtain social services and facilities to support their lives); Participation, Democracy and Good Government (not only during elections but also to fix government at the local level); Values, Culture, Purpose (including how society expresses and preserves its values ​​and products); and Environment and Sustainability (how people care for the environment to support their own survival).

Expert Speakers’ Responses

Regarding the definition of wellbeing, Melani said that according to Wiseman and Brasher, in 2008, community wellbeing is a combination of social, economic, environmental, cultural and political conditions identified by individuals and their communities as essential to them to develop and realize its potential.  

Melani also reminded that there are many definitions, institutions, and studies on wellbeing, where this wellbeing measurement can be used at the country, community, or individual level. Melani suggested that we should measure wellbeing at the community level, because from the community level we could see the relationship between the community and the country, and the relationship between the community and the individuals in it. Apart from that, the community can also relate to other communities.

The discussion was followed by a response from Faisal Basri. First, Faisal suggested to create an index on wellbeing measurement, which includes the weighting methodology, important things that are included in the index calculation, and so on.

Second, regarding the location for data collection, Faisal suggested collecting data in communities that have conflicts with mining, plantations (especially oil palm), tourism development, urban areas (other than Jakarta), and communities that do not have conflicts.

Third, he also reminded to pay attention to the available data and indicators, such as the data from Socio-Economic Survey which is owned by the Central Statistics Agency (BPS). This is because the survey data shows the concern or uncertainty felt by the community. According to him, when the community feels anxious, the wellbeing conditions has not been achieved.

Participants Discussion

The discussion that took place in the last session was very interesting, there were more and more things to consider in determining the location for wellbeing measurements. Representatives of civil society organizations also shared their opinions. For example, Arifin Saleh from the Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN) who suggested that there should be a comparison of sample areas, between areas where the country is doing its actual jobs and the region where the country only functions administratively.  

Wahyubinatara Fernandez (RMI) as moderator also reminded that the presence of the country in a region needs to be considered, because that there are countries that are present to destroy the region in the name of “development”, and the countries that are present to actually build its society.

In addition, Even Sembiring (WALHI) also responded to the determination of the area for collecting data of wellbeing measurement at the community level. According to him, if the purpose of the research is to generate new discourses or counter narratives, one must look at communities that are able to withstand the threat of conflict and can prevent corporate activities. In addition, it is also necessary to have an area where the people can prove that their ecological economy has succeeded in bringing them to a better environment, which can save their land, water and species, and that they consider important.

All participants hoped that the determination of the initial location or area for data collection related to wellbeing measurements at the community level could represent agricultural, coastal and urban areas. Whether those who experience conflict or not, this will be discussed further and deepened by the research team.

This discussion can be a big step for the use of wellbeing measuring instruments. Where the measurement can portray the condition of society in a more just and civilized manner, based on democratic principles, and aims at social justice for all its people.

 

Author: Siti Marfu’ah

Translated by: Alfina

[1] Bappenas, 2009, hal I-8. Ringkasan Eksekutif Buku Pegangan Tahun 2009 Penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan Pembangunan Daerah. Penguatan Ekonomi Daerah: Langkah Menghadapi Krisis Keuangan Global. https://www.bappenas.go.id/files/4413/5027/4149/ringkasan-eksekutifhandbook-2009060509__20090518105300__0.pdf.

[2] Anggota Koalisi Tenure yang hadir dalam diskusi : Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN) ; Badan Registrasi Wilayah Adat (BRWA) ; HuMa-Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum Berbasis Masyarakat dan Ekologis ; Koalisi Rakyat Untuk Keadilan Perikanan (KIARA); Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (KPA) ; RMI-Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment ; Rights and Resources Initiatives (RRI) ; Sajogyo Institute ; Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) ; dan Working Group for ICCAs in Indonesia (WGII)

“Kebijakan, Undang-undang, prosedur dan keputusan terkait dengan tanah cukup mencerminkan hak-hak, kebutuhan dan aspirasi individu serta masyarakat yang akan terpengaruh olehnya” 

CBI on Commitment 7 (Inclusive Decision Making)

Sebagai basis sumber daya yang juga terkait dengan hak asasi manusia seperti ekonomi, sosial, hak sipil dan hak politik. Akses terhadap tanah tidak seharusnya secara eksklusif terfokus pada kelompok-kelompok dewasa saja. Kehidupan di masa depan merupakan tempat di mana anak-anak muda memiliki akses yang luas terhadap penyampaian hak-hak yang ingin mereka suarakan, menjadi bagian dari kelompok yang dapat dikenali dan dapat terlibat secara langsung dalam proses pengambilan keputusan yang secara spesifik mereka butuhkan.

Pada tanggal 16 November  2020, telah diselenggarakan pertemuan secara virtual dengan beberapa mitra seperti: AFA (Asian Farmers’ Association for Rural Development); CDA (Community Development Association); Ekta Parishad, FNN (Farmers and Nature Net Association) dan RMI (The Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment), sebagai wadah untuk melakukan rapat perdana dalam rangka peluncuran agenda program CBI7 2020-2021. Adapun tujuan-tujuan dalam melakukan program tersebut seperti, merealisasikan pemberdayaan anak muda pedesaan, mereduksi angka kemiskinan, peningkatan penghidupan yang layak bagi masyarakat pedesaan dan meningkatkan kedaulatan pangan dengan memastikan inklusi anak muda pedesaan dalam tata kelola lahan menuju pembangunan pedesaan berkelanjutan di kawasan Asia.

Melalui wadah ini, The Youth and Land Asia secara bahu-membahu melakukan program kolaborasi dengan berbagai pihak dari tingkat lokal hingga regional, serta berfokus pada tiga bidang strategis yakni 1) Membangun solidaritas bagi anak muda pedesaan dan perkotaan 2) mempersiapan anak muda di kertas posisi, baik posisi maupun situasi mereka dan 3) Meningkatkan dukungan dari pemangku kepentingan terkait, mengenai anak muda dan masalah-masalah yang memiliki keterkaitan dengan pertanahan.

“Wadah bagi anak muda di pedesaan dan perkotaan akan terbentuk tatkala kedua kelompok tersebut mulai mengetahui permasalahan-permasalahan apa saja yang akan mereka hadapi kedepannya. Upaya tersebut merupakan ruang pembelajaran bagi  anak muda perkotaan untuk membangun kesadaraan kritis mengenai permasalahan sosial di lingkup pedesaan. Adapun bagi anak muda di pedesaan, hal tersebut merupakan satu kesempatan untuk mempelajari apa saja yang dibutuhkan untuk hidup di wilayah perkotaan. Pengetahuan tersebut akan sangat berguna pada saat mereka diharuskan untuk membuat satu keputusan penting mengenai masa depan mereka (yaitu: apakah akan tinggal atau meninggalkan wilayah desa). Kedua kelompok tersebut pada akhirnya akan memiliki ruang untuk saling menghargai dan membangun kepercayaan diri mereka sendiri.”

Strategi pertama yakni “Pembangunan solidaritas bagi anak muda pedesaan dan perkotaan” bersumber dari berbagai pengalaman yang dimiliki oleh anggota-anggota Youth and Land Asia dalam menghubungkan kedua belah pihak, yakni antara anak muda pedesaan dan perkotaan. Hal ini akan menjadi satu perjalanan yang panjang dan harus dilakukan melalui metode capacity building. Sedangkan strategi kedua dan ketiga akan berfungsi sebagai strategi menengah. Di dalamnya, kelompok anak muda akan berkumpul untuk menyelenggarakan konsultasi pada tingkat negara, serta diikuti dengan keterlibatan para pemegang hak lokal maupun nasional sebagai bagian dari proses advokasi. Pada saat itu pula, semua anggota akhirnya dapat mengumpulkan seluruh kertas posisi, yang kemudian disusun menjadi regional.

Di tengah kondisi dunia yang belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya yang disebabkan oleh virus Covid-19, bersama-sama, tim Youth and Land Asia akan memperlihatkan kepada dunia betapa kuatnya gerakan akar rumput. Membangun lebih banyak lagi konsep kehidupan inklusif dengan memberikan teladan, sebagai contohnya dalam pengambilan keputusan terkait dengan lahan melalui cara yang inklusif. Dengan melakukan pengelolaan lahan inklusif dan membuahkan hasil yang baik, akan memberikan pengaruh terhadap mata pencaharian jutaan orang yang nantinya akan diperhatikan pula oleh Pemerintah dan lembaga lainnya.

“Policies, laws, procedures and decisions concerning land adequately reflect the rights, needs and aspirations of individuals and communities who will be affected by them”

CBI on Commitment 7 (Inclusive Decision Making)

As a resource base for basic human rights such as economic, social, cultural and civil and political rights, Land should not be exclusively accessed by Adult groups only. The world of the future is where youth can voice more to the access of their rights and be a group that is recognized and involved in any decision making process over their specific needs. 

On November 16, 2020, attended virtually by all partners namely: AFA (Asian Farmers’ Association for Rural Development); CDA (Community Development Association); Ekta Parishad, FNN (Farmers and Nature Net Association) and RMI (The Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment) as leading platform is a kickoff meeting to launch CBI7 Program for 2020-2021 Agenda. The goal is to realize empowerment of rural youth, poverty reduction and decent rural livelihoods, and to enhance food sovereignty by ensuring rural youth inclusion in land governance toward sustainable rural development in Asia region.

Under this platform, The Youth and Land Asia will hand in hand doing collaborative program from local to regional level focusing on three strategic areas 1) Solidarity building for rural and urban youth 2) Youth preparation on position paper regarding their position and situation and 3) Increasing support from relevant stakeholders in terms of youth and land-related issues. 

“The rural-urban platform will start with both groups knowing more about the problems and challenges faced in both settings. It is a learning space for urban youth to build their critical awareness on social problems in rural areas. As for rural youth, it is an opportunity to learn on what it takes to live in an urban setting, knowledge that will be used later in important decision making processes on what their future will be (i.e.: whether to stay or leave the rural area). Both groups will also have the space to appreciate one another and build their confidence reciprocally” 

This first strategy “Solidarity building for rural and urban youth” scratching from experiences of YLA’s members linking both rural-urban Youth is going to be a long journey for all to do through capacity building method while the second and third strategies will serve as the medium one. Here, Youth groups will gather to organize a consultation at the country’s level and followed by an engagement inviting their local and national rights holders as part of advocacy processes. By then, all members will finally compile all position papers gathered to be the regional one. 

Amid the unprecedented world caused by Covid19 virus, together, the Youth and Land Asia team will show the world how powerful the grassroots movement is. Creating a more and more inclusive world by giving a good example of inclusive decision making over land as its sample. An inclusive land management that its good results will affect the livelihoods of millions of people which the Government and other institutions are going to take a look at.

 

Writer: Novia FS